I grew up in the Baptist Church as many of you already know. While there was a lot of positive that came from it – largely in direct relationship with other church members – there was always an undercurrent of fear and guilt that I found oppressive. Beyond that, I actually found the message often alienated me from the community and even from God.
I’d come to worship, youth group or go to church camp feeling pretty good and excited to see my friends. I loved the singing and the fellowship, even if I didn’t agree with a lot of the theology. I could live with that discrepancy.
But more often than not, I left feeling worse than when I got there. I was told sternly that I was sinning, even if I didn’t realize it. And rest assured God was watching. Summer camp was the worst. It seemed a gathering was incomplete until several children were crying, prostrating themselves and begging for forgiveness – for what, they weren’t always sure, but they knew they needed it.
I felt dirty. Unworthy. Lower than low. And of course, the only prescription for such a spiritual malady was contrition and confession, as the church leaders saw fit to dispense. So when I read a two-piece blog post by my friend and colleague, Matthew Paul Turner, about a member of Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill church in Seattle and what he went through there, it dredged up any number of emotions and memories from the past.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true.
Not pleasant ones, mind you.
I’ll abstain from retelling the whole story since Turner told it so well to begin with, but I’ll try to summarize. Basically, a young man named Andrew was engaged to a woman in the church. He was an active participant on many levels in the church, and she was the daughter of a deacon. However, one night he succumbed to temptation and got physically involved with a woman he knew from the past. They didn’t have sex, Turner reports, but they “came close.”
Andrew confessed soon after to his fiancée, and then to his small group leader within the church. On further inquiry, he confessed to having been physically intimate with his fiancée prior to marriage as well, which is (understandably) counter to the teachings and values confessed at Mars Hill. Andrew was required to attend numerous meetings with different leaders within the church, in which he was castigated for his sins, and even called a “wolf.”
Here’s the first big red light. Though the physical encounters with both women were consensual, within the community of Mars Hill, Andrew and all other men are considered to be sexual predators when engaging in any sexual contact outside the bonds of marriage.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true:
Why? Because, as senior pastor Mark Driscoll often proclaims from the pulpit, women are “inferior vessels.” Women, in their inferior state, can’t be expected to be held accountable in the same way as men, who always bear the burden of forced aggression. Period.
If this was all there was, it would be enough, if not new information. Driscoll’s legacy of misogyny is well chronicled. However it gets worse. A lot worse.
Church leaders at Mars Hill decide Andrew will sign and adhere to the demands of a behavioral contract they drew up. It outlines not only how he should go about seeking forgiveness for his sin, but also how he is expected to behave both within the church and elsewhere, including having no personal association with women anywhere.
Andrew was hesitant to sign the agreement, and subsequently submitted a letter ending his membership with the church. In response, a church leader wrote him the following:
If this is your decision, you need to know you are leaving as a member under discipline not as a member in good standing. What this means is Matthew 18 discipline we discussed in our last meeting will be escalated, as there has not been enough time to determine if in fact you are walking in repentance. It is communicating to [name of community group leader] and me that you are unwilling to follow the leaders of your church who have determined you have been in sin and that time will be needed to determine if you are in fact walking in repentance.
[Paragraph mentioning Andrew's ex-fiancee edited out by Matthew Paul Turner]
If this is your final decision, you will also need to know this will not be our final communication as this is not an instance where you can walk away from the mess you have helped create and leave many issues unaddressed.
Please let me know if this is in fact your final decision as we will need to know how to best remain in follow up communication.
And then the church leadership posted the following letter to all members of Mars Hill on their own internal social networking site:
There’s so much to respond to here, but I’ll try to be brief. First, for pastors of a church to tell members who they can or can’t associate with outside of church smacks of cult-like behavior, as do the codes of conduct and public shaming of congregants. Had Andrew not confessed remorsefully to his fiancée and even his small group leader, there might be more grounds for calling him to account. But he readily admitted his wrongs and seemed to be seeking counsel and forgiveness.
But it wasn’t in the way the church wanted it. He had to be punished in their way.
To claim another has committed “Gospel shame” is damaging and judgmental enough. But to do so in an open letter to the entire church about someone who is no longer a member at Mars Hill seems to me to border on slander.
What’s more disturbing to me than all of the bullying, name-calling and shaming, sadistic tactics employed by the church leadership is that so many seem to accept this as a proper way to act as church to one another. Where is the grace? Where is the offer to help the couple reconcile or part peacefully? There’s not even a hint of the old draconian “love the sinner, hate the sin” ethos. It’s more like “hate the sin, abuse the sinner and shame him back into conformity.”
Meanwhile the world watches, with many assuming this is typical, acceptable Christian behavior. It’s not. There’s nothing Christ-like about calling women “inferior vessels.” Or in shaming a person publicly for their transgressions. Or in prohibiting them from engaging in relationship with others outside of the church.
And especially in ordering your entire congregation to effectively ostracize another person until and unless they will toe the line drawn by church leaders.
Our church in Pueblo, Colorado is made up in large part of people whose spirits have been damaged in other church settings in the past. what we have tried to present is a space of unconditional love, forgiveness and grace. We’re not perfect, and we’re not averse to calling people to account for their actions. But we try our best to love people through their struggles. We trust that, given the proper care and support, people will open up to the possibility that God’s grace – not our discipline or judgment – will offer the healing they seek.
I’m embarrassed to call myself a Christian when I read heartbreaking stories like these. My only consolation is in claiming publicly to Andrew and others that this is not my understanding of the Way of Christ. This sadistic, hateful behavior is not what we’re called to as church. It can be different; in some cases it is. But obviously it’s not common enough.
I’m sorry for Andrew. I’m embarrassed by the actions of Driscoll and Mars Hill. In a perfect world, we who serve the damaged, alienated and outcast would have no job left to do. Until then, the best the rest of us can do is say, on behalf of Christians who equate faith with sadism, “I’m sorry. There is another way. You are loved.”
FOLLOW-UP BY CHRISTIAN PIATT:
First, I owe an apology for mis-quoting Mars Hill’s Pastor Mark Driscoll in an earlier post when I said he had called women “inferior vessels.” In fact, he refers to them as “weaker vessels,’ and not inferior.
The quote (or one of them at least) where this can be found is from a Bible study he posted online about 1 Peter 3:7, which says:
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. – 1 Peter 3:7
Driscoll goes on to say that “Men and women are equal but different,” followed by the claim that, “Within the covenant of marriage, men are the head and women are the helpers.”
He goes on in the same post to state the following:
In 1 Peter 3:7 we see this figurative use of the word to describe wives. It should be pointed out, though, that by implication Peter calls men “vessels,” too, since the use of “weaker” shows that a “stronger” vessel exists, which would be the husband.
To his credit, Driscoll does assert that, though men are the “stronger vessels,” this strength should be used to protect their wives instead of abuse or exploit them. He gives a number of examples of how he lives this out, including standing or sitting between her and other men, and so on.
Again, my apologies for misstating his claim about women. Feel as you may about him, it’s incumbent on me to get the facts straight whenever possible.
I do, however, stand by my criticisms of Driscoll as a misogynist who frequently uses his pastoral power to subjugate women to a role of support for their men. Not only do I believe he is “proof texting” scripture (cherry-picking texts to assert a premeditated agenda); he also is acting un-Biblically when one considers texts such as that from Paul in Galatians 3:28, which says:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Granted, there are cases to be made form Paul’s writing as well that women are somehow to be subjugate to men. However, we have to consider the cultural context in which these texts were written. Consider, for example, the fact that the women who followed Jesus as his disciples are not named for the most [art, and certainly are not considered among “the twelve.” In the story of the feeding of the five thousand, the story notes that the number includes only men, “not counting women and children.”
Ancient Jewish law outlines codes of conduct for how men are to treat their wives, all of which are consistent with how they are to treat the rest of their property. In that context, Paul’s claim about there being no “man” or “woman” any longer would be considered remarkably radical.
Finally, there is no account of Jesus ever relegating women to a secondary role. Though the recorders of scripture may have marginalized the place of women in many cases, Jesus consistently held up, empowered and affirmed Jesus. In fact, it was the women – as Driscoll himself points out on the Mars Hill website – that stood fast at the foot of the cross when Christ was executed, and were the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
Still, sexism like that which Driscoll preaches relegates women to a role of service to their man.
It’s all well and good to say in one breath that women are “no better or worse” than men. But if in the next breath you clearly place them in a role of obedience and service to their male counterparts, there is nothing to call this other than what it is: